Total electricity lost in transport from powerplant to the home is about 10%. There is a test project for a superconductor 50km powerline in South Korea.

I don't think it will ever be cost and ressource-effective to switch electricity to that. It's also a nightmare scenario for cooling system failures causing very long blackouts.

Everything about repairing a broken cable will be alot more complex and expensive.

We're headed into a Competence crisis. Switching energy distribution to something so highly complex and delicate is begging for major fuck-ups.

High-voltage transport loss are small, 2% to 4%, the biggest loss is after the switch to low-voltage for close distribution.

You need to use alot of energy to cool the superconductor. Is it going to break-even? Scrape some energy after counting cooling? How is that going to justify the costs?

For now, under very high pressure, there is a superconductor under 92°K, which means it can be cooled to that state with liquid nitrogen (Nitrogen (edit :) boiling point is 77°K ), making its use financially accessible.

The need for very high pressure limits use.

Superconductors are already used for high definition Magnetic Resonance Imaging

CERN's Large Hadron Collider ( scientific research )

There are applications for nuclear energy.

A few short powerlines for testing technology.

Total electricity lost in transport from powerplant to the home is about 10%. There is a test project for a superconductor 50km powerline in South Korea.

I don't think it will ever be cost and ressource-effective to switch electricity to that. It's also a nightmare scenario for cooling system failures causing very long blackouts.

Everything about repairing a broken cable will be alot more complex and expensive.

We're headed into a Competence crisis. Switching energy distribution to something so highly complex and delicate is begging for major fuck-ups.

High-voltage transport loss are small, 2% to 4%, the biggest loss is after the switch to low-voltage for close distribution.

You need to use alot of energy to cool the superconductor. Is it going to break-even? Scrape some energy after counting cooling? How is that going to justify the costs?

For now, under very high pressure, there is a superconductor under 92°K, which means it can be cooled to that state with liquid nitrogen (Nitrogen freezing point is 77°K ), making its use financially accessible.

The need for very high pressure limits use.

Superconductors are already used for high definition Magnetic Resonance Imaging

CERN's Large Hadron Collider ( scientific research )

There are applications for nuclear energy.

A few short powerlines for testing technology.

Total electricity lost in transport from powerplant to the home is about 10%. There is a test project for a superconductor 50km powerline in South Korea.

I don't think it will ever be cost and ressource-effective to switch electricity to that. It's also a nightmare scenario for cooling system failures causing very long blackouts.

Everything about repairing a broken cable will be alot more complex and expensive.

We're headed into a Competence crisis. Switching energy distribution to something so highly complex and delicate is begging for major fuck-ups.

High-voltage transport loss are small, 2% to 4%, the biggest loss is after the switch to low-voltage for close distribution.

You need to use alot of energy to cool the superconductor. Is it going to break-even? Scrape some energy after counting cooling? How is that going to justify the costs?

For now, under very high pressure, there is a superconductor under 92°K, which means it can be cooled to that state with liquid nitrogen (Nitrogen freezing point is 77°K ), making its use financially accessible.

The need for very high pressure limits use.

Superconductors are already used for high definition Magnetic Resonance Imaging

CERN's Large Hadron Collider ( scientific research )

There are applications for nuclear energy.